OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 27:2 2012] the only real source of combined wisdom on the subject. Experienced election attorneys who have seen recounts unfold in other states have a huge leg up when dealing with state administrators and judges who lack a multistate perspective. As the Minnesota case study below illustrates, this phenomenon has the problematic effect of leaving democracy in the hands of whichever side has the more sophisticated lawyer. Even in a case where lawyers are evenly matched, lawyers are by trade zealous and partisan advocates for their client's interests, not the public interest. What is often missing is a seasoned expert to guide the process and raise flags when process issues arise. Experienced election mediators could perform just such a role. The next section examines the second variable: the model of mediation might be most appropriate in this setting. B. Which Mediation Model is Appropriate for Mediation? The question of whether mediators can do a better job than courts in helping resolve post-election process disputes can only be answered by understanding the nature of modern mediation practice and the types of mediation on offer. Many mediators prefer a mediation style in which they do not weigh in on the substance of the dispute, instead facilitating a process through which the parties can reach an agreement that meets their interests. This approach is generally known as "facilitative mediation."88 A facilitative mediator refrains from, for example, providing her opinion about which side has made the better argument or has the stronger case, even when pressed by one or both sides to do so (as is common). A facilitative mediator will also refrain from suggesting options for the parties to consider, preferring instead to facilitate a process in which the parties generate their own options. 89 But just because a mediator adopts a facilitative approach does not mean the mediator cannot be "directive" of the process. In fact, facilitative .mediators http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3019.html (finding there is more demand than supply of top-caliber election lawyers). 88 Lela P. Love, The Top Ten Reasons Why Mediators Should Not Evaluate, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REv. 937, 943-44 (1997) (facilitative mediation is a "dispute resolution process through which parties are taught how to resolve their own disputes, listen to each other differently, broaden their own capacities for understanding and collaboration, and create resolutions that build relationships, generate more harmony, and are 'win-win.'"). 89 The philosophical underpinning behind this principle is at least in part, that by suggesting an option the mediator might appear non-neutral, or as if he or she is pushing a resolution on the parties. Doing so flies in the face of a core value in mediation: selfdetermination. See Lela P. Love, The Top Ten Reasons Why Mediators Should Not Evaluate, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 937,945 (1997). 346 HeinOnline -- 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 346 2012